If you want to do a job on behalf of the public, in the best interests of the public, wages paid by the public, you must ensure you are up for it.  Otherwise, "get back to where you once belonged", to coin a phrase from the Beatles (April 1969).

The figures around the outside are even more culpable than the above members of the Public Petitions Committee (PPC).  Carolyn Leckie MSP excluded as she later motioned the Scottish Executive in her own right for a fresh probe into the Dunblane massacre. LINK  However, the other members of the PPC should hang their heads in shame for lying to the Scottish people, because, by so doing, they inadvertently or otherwise protected, inter alios, paedophiles' past vile activities while simultaneously giving them the green light to continue unabatedly for many years to come.  The bottom three members immediately above were not at the hearing, as opposed to what was supposed to be the "consideration", of my [William Burns'] original petition, PE652 - which called for a new Dunblane Inquiry LINK - but they combined with the other paedophile protecters in the PPC to butcher another of my linked petitions, PE948 on 22 March 2006 LINK when they jointly and severally promoted the great lie that the call for a new Dunblane Inquiry had already been "considered" by the Committee beforehand.  It had not!  It had been "heard" by their deaf ears, but it had not been remotely "considered" by them.  In addition, they totally ignored the written submissions with which members of the PPC were previously provided.  They either did not care to read the submissions, or key members of the PPC were warned off the course by external, sinister forces and were instructed to ignore them.

According to the parliamentary website, when consideration of PE948 was called, it was decided that: "The Public Petitions Committee agreed to link consideration of petition PE933, PE940 and PE948 and, on the basis of the Parliament's previous consideration of the issues raised, to close consideration of these petitions."  But they had NOT been considered.  Moreover, they did not even "consider" the four pages of new evidence I provided along with PE948. LINK The vote was unanimous so the Committee unanimously stand accused of being liars.  To dismiss something without deliberating the evidence is not to "consider" it.  They are therefore contemptible liars.

They linked three petitions together without asking the permission of the petitioners, Doreen Hagger, Sandra Uttley and William Burns respectively.  This makes them beneath contempt.  PE948 was not even worded by the petitioner, as it transpired, but only signed by him.  It was worded by the Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, Dr James Johnston, one of the then 170 or so duly elected legal "bouncers" (sometimes known as lawyers, or, more appropriately, law herdsmen) in full-time employment in the Scottish Parliament whose advice is accepted without question on almost every burdensome decision taken there.  Perhaps it should be asked: who truly holds the reins of power in Parliament?  But that is a question for another day.

The terms of my petition were ignored on three occasions and the only way I could have it deemed admissible was to accept the wording of the unscrupulous Johnston.  The Committee also lied that the families of the victims showed no interest in a renewed inquiry. When were they asked?  Only Mick North publicly viewed an opinion without discussing it with the other families, but he does not speak for the other families.  More importantly, he does not speak for the Scottish people.

Perhaps he was promised a "gong" for his U-turn.  Who knows?.  But with the greatest respect to the bereaved families, this is not an issue for them alone; this is central to the legal, democratic and social structure of Scottish society and is not to be decided upon by victims alone.  When were victims ever given the opportunity to decide what the ultimate outcome should be in major issues of grave public concern!  A social edifice cannot be built on the grief of victims or the teardrops of a child.  When society needs renovated, no stone must be left unturned.

So who were the PPC trying to protect?  Themselves?  Their Jobs?  Lord Cullen?  Lord Sewel (House of Lords)? LINK  The former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd (ousted on 4 October 2006)?  High-profile legal and political people who are either/both paedophiles and/or Masons?  Click on the photos above to discover that Carolyn Leckie was the ONLY member of the PPC interested enough to act in the public interest.

On 11 August 2006, I sent all the above MSPs the following e-mail to which only Linda Fabiani responded; answering both questions in the negative:

Dear Sirs/Mesdames

Given the manner in which you, with your Public Petitions Committee involvement, have mercilessly ignored every petition that has called on the Scottish Parliament to conduct another inquiry into the events surrounding the Dunblane Massacre, I feel it is incumbent on me to ask you the following sincere questions in the interests of openness.  I shall pose it in straightforward language that allows no way for equivocation.  May I add that it is imperative that no one answers the questions on your behalf.  Public perception is all-important, so it would ill-serve everyone if that perception developed simply as a result of your refusal to answer the questions.

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest convenience, which I trust will be restricted to the matters contained within this letter.

Yours sincerely
William Burns

[Ed ~ Obviously, "public perception" is given scant regard by the above MSPs because Linda Fabiani was the only one who replied.  However, Carolyn Leckie had previously declared she was not a Freemason when my petition PE652 was heard in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, 29 October 2003. LINK   Carolyn Leckie was also the only MSP who pushed for a renewed inquiry.  She probably knew I included her in the point of issue because not to do so would not be in line with proper administrative procedures.  That said, females are not permitted to join the Masons, in any event.  Which is not to say that their partners or close relatives are not Masons and are sufficiently intimate to stealthily exert their Masonic influence or pressure on them.  As far as concerns the male members of the PPC, one would have thought that any "proud" member of the Masons would have been only too eager to declare his affiliation. On the other hand, one would have thought that any proud non-Mason would have been even more eager to confirm his non-affiliation.  That aside, the public pay their representatives to listen to them and to act accordingly.  On this occasion, the entire nation was let down diabolically.]